The Freedom Group (Bushmaster, Remington, DMPS, Marlin, Para) has a major presence in NYS. As they are up for sale, I certainly hope the purchaser moves production out of the state. Kimber, Kahr, and Auto-Ordinance are three other companies I can think of that are based in NYS.

New York already had a magazine-capacity limit of 10 rounds. This bill (which will almost certainly pass the Democrat-dominated NY House) lowers that limit to seven. Why seven? Dunno. Why was it 10 to begin with? What’s magic about that number?

For those who may have pooh-poohed gun owners over slippery-slope arguments, what do you have to say now? If New York can go from 10 to 7, then can go from 7 to 5, and 5 to 3, and 3 to 1. This soon-to-be law is exactly why entities like the NRA and GOA fight tooth and nail against any magazine limits. I feel terrible for the law-abiding gun owners of NYS who will soon be turned into criminals.

What that article also mentions is Remington has a two-century old manufacturing plant in upstate NEw York. They should take their plant and move it somewhere else. Why should NY State get that tax money? They should offer their employees some incentive to come with them too, that way it's not screwing them over.

"They have a particular vision about what government should and should not do. So they are suspicious about government's commitments, for example, to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat, or whether we should be spending money on medical research. So they've got a particular view of what government should do and should be."

-President Barack Obama on Republicans in the House

Obama ramping up the fear mongering. He will be in full temper tantrum mode in about a month. I can only hope the Republicans smell blood and use the obvious leverage they have here to continue putting him on the defensive.

The Republicans should get spending concessions out of this. If they don't, they might as well pack up and head home.

House simply needs to use Obama's speech when he was Senator about lack of leadership casues the debt cieling needing to be raised and pass only a bill that helps reduce the budget and that's all. Don't negotiate. It is then the Senate's job to pass the bill as is to go to Obama or ammend it and if they differ it then goes to conference committee. Harry Reid has corrupted this process.

If all else fails pass a bill that will only fund debt servicing, social security, medicaid, medicare and the military, everything else is stopped until a real budget is passed. If the Senate doesnt pass that either or if they do and Obama vetos it's on them for defaulting.

Time to put on the big boy pants and do something that might start fixing this mess.

DelPen wrote:If all else fails pass a bill that will only fund debt servicing, social security, medicaid, medicare and the military, everything else is stopped until a real budget is passed. If the Senate doesnt pass that either or if they do and Obama vetos it's on them for defaulting.

The problem with that is current spending runs about 140% of tax revenues. That means if the debt ceiling isn't raised, it's an instantaneous cut in total spending of 40%. Interest on the debt accounts for ~6% of expenditures, DoD and Medicare/Medicaid are roughly 20% each (give or take). So there's still a lot of money to go around under the 100% umbrella, but where do the cuts go? Arbitrarily slash everything by 40%?

DelPen wrote:House simply needs to use Obama's speech when he was Senator about lack of leadership casues the debt cieling needing to be raised and pass only a bill that helps reduce the budget and that's all. Don't negotiate. It is then the Senate's job to pass the bill as is to go to Obama or ammend it and if they differ it then goes to conference committee. Harry Reid has corrupted this process.

If all else fails pass a bill that will only fund debt servicing, social security, medicaid, medicare and the military, everything else is stopped until a real budget is passed. If the Senate doesnt pass that either or if they do and Obama vetos it's on them for defaulting.

Time to put on the big boy pants and do something that might start fixing this mess.

Barry voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a congressman. The liar-in-chief that it was irresponsible whwn Bush was prez.

How about not paying the executive,legislative and judicial branches instead of the people who pay these greedy incompetents salaries and bloated pensions? The Dems won't cut anything. They are on the Keynesian record as being hell bent on spending even more on our way to super government nirvana. Enjoy the ride.

DelPen wrote:If all else fails pass a bill that will only fund debt servicing, social security, medicaid, medicare and the military, everything else is stopped until a real budget is passed. If the Senate doesnt pass that either or if they do and Obama vetos it's on them for defaulting.

The problem with that is current spending runs about 140% of tax revenues. That means if the debt ceiling isn't raised, it's an instantaneous cut in total spending of 40%. Interest on the debt accounts for ~6% of expenditures, DoD and Medicare/Medicaid are roughly 20% each (give or take). So there's still a lot of money to go around under the 100% umbrella, but where do the cuts go? Arbitrarily slash everything by 40%?

Freeze spending on federal salaries until the budget is balanced, convert federal retirements to 401 k plans, eliminate pensions for elected federal officials. institute a freeze on federal hiring until a 25% reduction is achieved by attrition and freeze spending on every feral program until a balance is achieved. Immediately begin a staggered increase in eligibility age for SS and medicare of 2 years staggered over a 20 year period.We should help the states by withholding federal funds until they address the absurd pension and other bennies that public sector workers receive. Of course that would take on the Democrat base plus the free lunch crowd that the Dems bank on;so that isn't happening. The federal plan?California here we com;.bankrupting the country like where we've started from.

Looking over the NY gun law that just passed, it’s even perhaps dumber than I thought. Magazines over 10 rounds are banned, as they have been in NYS since the 1990s (the state passed its own magazine ban around the same time as the federal ban, but the state one didn’t have a sunset in it). If you still have a pre-1990s magazine that holds more than 10, you have to get rid of it. New magazines may hold no more than seven rounds. The 10-round magazines that have been on sale for the last couple decades are grandfathered in, but it’s illegal to put more than seven rounds in one. Seriously. The difference between legal and illegal is putting that eighth cartridge into a 10-round magazine:

It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than seven but less than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, [Walton County Sheriff Joe] Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said.*****Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri learned from Chapman late Friday night that [the intruder, Paul] Slater has been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver and a punctured stomach.

Shot five times in the torso, face and neck and it only broke the attacker's psychological will to fight.... but did not actually end his ability to fight. That may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction. And it doesn't even consider the possibility that if there had been more than one intruder, the story might have had a very different ending.

Personally, if my life is on the line I want as many bullets as I can possibly get my hands on.